![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A message I sent that has yet to be answered; I post it here before editing content: Usernamewikipediabackwards, I appreciate your contributions to this page. However your last two (inserting Maureen Dowd and Dana Milbank) don't seem to fit properly, though I wanted to address them before reverting your edits. Dowd's statements about Feith come from December 2007, 5 months before the book came out, so they are clearly not 'critical reception' of the book. They are about Feith, to be sure, but the purpose of this page is to present reviews and opinions on the book itself, not on Feith, or on Feith talking about his book. This brings us to Milbank, who seems to have heard Feith speak at CSIS but not read the book. Nothing in his article reflects that Milbank has read the book--that the article, in other words, qualifies as critical reception. Instead, it is a comment by Milbank on Feith speaking about his own book. This is of a completely different order than Kissinger, the Wall Street Journal, or Charles Taylor reading and reviewing the book. Certainly Taylor's critical remarks of Feith deserve to be on this page, and certainly more critical reviews will come as the book gets circulated. But in the meantime, we should limit the page to comments actually about the contents of the book, not just about Feith. This would mean removing Dowd and Milbank. Enyce2308 (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Enyce2308 ( talk) 20:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Usernamewikipediabackwards, do you really not see the difference between proper reviews or speeches about the content of the book, and blog posts that are simply conjecture about the book (and related publicity events)? To assert that the book was 'nothing but fingerpointing' and then merely cite some cases (pretty light on quotations from the book, mind you) where Feith was critical of others in government is weak. By that measure, any book that makes any judgments about anything or anybody can be characterized as 'nothing but judgmental blamelaying' is quoted selectively enough. To reproduce shoddy blog work is certainly shoddy for a proper wiki entry. Meanwhile, see the information I've just added--a proper, and critical, review of Feith's book that was published by a known author in the Washington Times. This isn't about whitewashing, but it's about inserting reasonable information. Enyce2308 ( talk) 08:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I came here to mention an column by Christopher Hitchens in this article, only to find an already-bloated list of quotations, some completely inappropriate for this article. As the tag says, "This article or section contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry".
So I've WP:BOLDly removed 8 of the 12 (and edited 2 of the 4 I kept, to show GOP affiliations). But first I copied the entire list here, and added a comment after each quotation.
My edit is only a starting point for discussion and further improvements to the article. Please put any comments you have about an individual quote after the quote, prefixed with "::*". Remember that this article is about a specific book, not the wider debate about the issues raised by that book.
Hitchens makes the point that the MSM coverage of this book has been startlingly slight. (The NYT has three times declined to publish an article by James Risen about it!) In fact, AFAIK, Hitchen's essay is at present the most (or only?) prominent review the book has been given. I think the article should mention these things. CWC 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not checking back here like I should have. I'm glad to see Ray Yang's comments and subsequent edits. I've now added Christopher Hitchen's Slate column to the list, and I invite other editors to improve my work some more. Cheers, CWC 12:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
References
I have reverted *yet again* the protest section. It'll be a cold day in hell before a prominent right-of-center political figure can show up at a campus without harassment by students. Other mentions in this section (such as his being disinvited from Georgetown) deserve to be mentioned only in the biography of Feith, and are not about his book. RayAYang ( talk) 20:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A message I sent that has yet to be answered; I post it here before editing content: Usernamewikipediabackwards, I appreciate your contributions to this page. However your last two (inserting Maureen Dowd and Dana Milbank) don't seem to fit properly, though I wanted to address them before reverting your edits. Dowd's statements about Feith come from December 2007, 5 months before the book came out, so they are clearly not 'critical reception' of the book. They are about Feith, to be sure, but the purpose of this page is to present reviews and opinions on the book itself, not on Feith, or on Feith talking about his book. This brings us to Milbank, who seems to have heard Feith speak at CSIS but not read the book. Nothing in his article reflects that Milbank has read the book--that the article, in other words, qualifies as critical reception. Instead, it is a comment by Milbank on Feith speaking about his own book. This is of a completely different order than Kissinger, the Wall Street Journal, or Charles Taylor reading and reviewing the book. Certainly Taylor's critical remarks of Feith deserve to be on this page, and certainly more critical reviews will come as the book gets circulated. But in the meantime, we should limit the page to comments actually about the contents of the book, not just about Feith. This would mean removing Dowd and Milbank. Enyce2308 (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Enyce2308 ( talk) 20:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Usernamewikipediabackwards, do you really not see the difference between proper reviews or speeches about the content of the book, and blog posts that are simply conjecture about the book (and related publicity events)? To assert that the book was 'nothing but fingerpointing' and then merely cite some cases (pretty light on quotations from the book, mind you) where Feith was critical of others in government is weak. By that measure, any book that makes any judgments about anything or anybody can be characterized as 'nothing but judgmental blamelaying' is quoted selectively enough. To reproduce shoddy blog work is certainly shoddy for a proper wiki entry. Meanwhile, see the information I've just added--a proper, and critical, review of Feith's book that was published by a known author in the Washington Times. This isn't about whitewashing, but it's about inserting reasonable information. Enyce2308 ( talk) 08:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I came here to mention an column by Christopher Hitchens in this article, only to find an already-bloated list of quotations, some completely inappropriate for this article. As the tag says, "This article or section contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry".
So I've WP:BOLDly removed 8 of the 12 (and edited 2 of the 4 I kept, to show GOP affiliations). But first I copied the entire list here, and added a comment after each quotation.
My edit is only a starting point for discussion and further improvements to the article. Please put any comments you have about an individual quote after the quote, prefixed with "::*". Remember that this article is about a specific book, not the wider debate about the issues raised by that book.
Hitchens makes the point that the MSM coverage of this book has been startlingly slight. (The NYT has three times declined to publish an article by James Risen about it!) In fact, AFAIK, Hitchen's essay is at present the most (or only?) prominent review the book has been given. I think the article should mention these things. CWC 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not checking back here like I should have. I'm glad to see Ray Yang's comments and subsequent edits. I've now added Christopher Hitchen's Slate column to the list, and I invite other editors to improve my work some more. Cheers, CWC 12:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
References
I have reverted *yet again* the protest section. It'll be a cold day in hell before a prominent right-of-center political figure can show up at a campus without harassment by students. Other mentions in this section (such as his being disinvited from Georgetown) deserve to be mentioned only in the biography of Feith, and are not about his book. RayAYang ( talk) 20:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)